An Israel Ban Just Got Upheld – And They’re Losing It

Right, so Israel’s used to get its way and woe betide anyone try and stop them — but this time, Indonesia have not just blocked their path, they’ve slammed the door shut and double-bolted it for good measure. When Indonesia refused visas to Israeli athletes for the World Gymnastics Championships, it didn’t issue a fiery manifesto or wave a boycott banner; it just did the paperwork. Calmly. Legally. Completely. And when Israel ran crying to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, we are being persecuted, we are victims, the judges shrugged and said: “That’s sovereignty, deal with it.” Ah, someone else’s sovereignty being put before theirs, well how dare they? For a country that treats international law like a suggestion leaflet, being out-lawyered by the world’s largest Muslim democracy was a humiliation it didn’t see coming, but it very much deserved and the irony of it all is that it wasn’t even a protest. It was a formality — the bureaucratic version of a mic drop. The quietest boycott in modern sport — but the loudest legal slap Israel’s had in some time and it begs the question that if Indonesia can boycott Israel from a sporting event in light of the genocidal acts it still must answer for, why aren’t others doing it too?
Right, so the other day Indonesia did something that most Western institutions have spent more than a year desperately trying to avoid. Its Law Minister, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, announced that Israeli gymnasts would not be issued visas to enter the country for the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Jakarta. The statement was confirmed by both the Immigration Director and by Jakarta’s governor too. The entire Israeli delegation — athletes, coaches, and staff — were excluded before a single flight was booked.
Indonesia and Israel have no diplomatic relations, and Jakarta has repeatedly condemned Israel’s assault on Gaza as a genocide. The foreign ministry had said so on record months earlier. The refusal came amid street protests involving thousands who demanded that the government bar Israel’s participation.
Israel’s Gymnastics Federation called the decision “outrageous” and claimed sport was being “politicised.” Well sport is inherently political. Yet the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) quietly confirmed that the host nation was acting within its rights. No global rule compels a country to grant visas and they as a sporting body have no say over such matters.
There was no boycott declaration, no fiery rhetoric. On paper, there was only a visa refusal. But in practice, it amounted to a lawful disqualification. Indonesia didn’t breach FIG’s charter; it followed its own law. The result was identical to a suspension, yet immune from sanction.
It was coordinated between the ministries of justice, immigration, and sport — a deliberate extension of national foreign policy. Indonesia’s position on Palestine has remained constant since independence: solidarity with the colonised and rejection of apartheid systems. In that lineage, the gymnastics decision was continuity, not disruption.
However all of this was utterly unacceptable to the professional cry-babies of the genocidal blue and white state. Within hours, Israel’s Gymnastics Federation filed two urgent appeals at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne. The first sought an injunction forcing Indonesia to issue visas. The second demanded that FIG relocate or cancel the championships.
For three days, Israeli lawyers pushed emergency motions, briefing sympathetic media that the court might intervene. Then, without ceremony, the CAS published a two-line decision: it lacked jurisdiction to compel a sovereign state to grant visas or to override its immigration policy. Can you imagine someone trying to override Israeli sovereignty given how they’ve weaponised it to commit genocide? Someone else’s sovereignty though and its expected! FIG immediately confirmed that it would proceed in Jakarta under Indonesian law as well. So that’ll be 2-0 to Indonesia then.
But that was it — a legal shutdown delivered in a few sentences.
The Israeli side called the verdict “a dangerous precedent.” Officials warned that world sport would collapse if hosts could act on “political grounds.” But the court’s logic was simple: sovereignty is not subject to arbitration by a sporting body, such a notion is ridiculous. Indonesia’s decision was lawful, final, and immune to appeal.
For Israel, the shock was psychological as much as legal. The institutions it had long trusted to protect its exceptional status had, this time, enforced the rules as written. Well how dare they?
The combination of Indonesia’s action, FIG’s compliance, and CAS’s restraint has become known as the “Jakarta Model” now. The model rests on an uncontroversial principle: a sovereign state controls who can cross its borders. That power cannot be challenged by a sports body or by a tribunal designed to resolve contractual disputes.
In exercising that right, Indonesia turned legality itself into an instrument of accountability. Other governments have noticed as well. Lawmakers in Malaysia, Pakistan, and Algeria publicly praised the decision and discussed adopting similar measures. None of them broke a treaty or federation rule; all operated in the same lawful space.
Indonesia’s reasoning was straightforward. The government faced public and parliamentary pressure to respond to Israel’s campaign in Gaza. The death toll among civilians, verified by humanitarian agencies and cited by the International Court of Justice in its genocide proceedings, had surpassed tens of thousands. Religious organisations, labour unions, and political parties all demanded that Jakarta refuse to host Israeli representatives.
Minister Mahendra’s statement was blunt: Indonesia could not, in good conscience, welcome representatives of a state committing atrocities. The remark reflected majority sentiment. Polling from national institutes showed more than three-quarters of Indonesians supported the ban.
After CAS’s ruling, the reaction in Tel Aviv was furious. The Israeli Gymnastics Federation’s secretary called the situation “heartbreaking.” Commentators described it as “sporting antisemitism” because of course they did. Yet Indonesia’s action had targeted a state delegation, not a faith or ethnicity, no matter how many times Israel try and conflate the two. No other team faced restriction. The outrage therefore revealed expectation rather than injustice.
Global sports institutions too often preach political neutrality. Their own behaviour however contradicts that. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, FIFA and UEFA suspended Russian teams within seventy-two hours. The International Olympic Committee advised the same. The justification was moral: an aggressor state could not be normalised on the field.
By that measure, Israel should have been suspended months ago. Its campaign in Gaza has produced civilian casualties on a far greater scale and prompted binding orders from the world’s highest court. Yet FIFA and UEFA remain silent when it comes to Israel.
A recent investigative feature on the issue concluded that the difference lies in politics, not principle. When Western governments condemn an aggressor, federations act; when they defend one, federations hide. Their supposed neutrality is therefore not a rule but a convenience.
FIFA’s written statutes make the hypocrisy explicit. Article 3 commits the organisation to upholding human rights. Article 14 permits suspension for bringing the game into disrepute. Those provisions were cited verbatim when Russia was banned. They remain unused in Israel’s case.
Human Rights Watch documented as early as 2016 that six Israeli football clubs based in illegal West Bank settlements play in Israel’s league system — a violation of FIFA’s own territorial rules. That evidence has been ignored for nearly a decade.
United Nations human-rights experts renewed the call for suspension last month, stating that Israel’s conduct in Gaza breached the same principles applied to Russia. FIFA did not respond.
Meanwhile, public movements have filled the vacuum. Under the banner #GameOverIsrael, protests have followed Israel’s national team across Europe. Outside a World Cup qualifier in Udine, Italy just yesterday, thousands demonstrated with banners reading “Show Israel the Red Card.” The images were broadcast globally. The message was consistent: apply the same standard to every state.
The double standard becomes sharper when set against Indonesia’s earlier experience. In 2023, FIFA stripped Jakarta of the Under-20 World Cup because it refused to host Israel. Two years later, the same federation allows Israel to compete freely while its military campaign is under ICJ scrutiny. The difference is not Indonesia’s behaviour but FIFA’s moral elasticity.
Israel’s participation in global sport has long been part of its diplomatic strategy. Each appearance, each handshake, reinforces the image of normal statehood. Exclusion breaks that illusion, but it’s like pulling teeth to get it despite the hypocrisy amongst some sporting bodies that gets exposed.
The Jakarta event marks the first time since the 1970s that Israel has been excluded from a world championship. It comes while the ICJ’s genocide case remains active. So the optics are unambiguous: a state under legal investigation has been uninvited by a G20 democracy.
No public-relations effort can disguise that absence. Israel’s reputation depends on presence. Jakarta replaced presence with absence, and absence with precedent.
Western outlets have of course given this story minimal attention, those that have describing it as a “visa complication.” By contrast, non-Western media framed it as moral defiance through law. That divergence reflects an enduring bias. When the West enforces ethics, it’s principle; when others do, it’s politics.
The Jakarta ruling now stands as a fixed point. CAS cannot overrule state immigration policy. FIG cannot force compliance. Israel’s exclusion remained intact. These outcomes have created a new hierarchy of authority inside sport: the host nation now holds the decisive power.
Legal scholars call it a structural shift. The balance has moved from federations to governments. Most major tournaments over the next decade will be in non-Western states. The implications are immediate and practical. Sport’s moral geography is changing and this is effective if more states choose to show it.
Israel’s protests after losing at CAS used emotional, almost theatrical language. They spoke of “heartbreak,” of “discrimination.” Yet what happened in Lausanne was routine legality. The law applied evenly.
For a state accustomed to exemption, equality feels like a punishment to them. That is why Indonesia’s calm refusal carried more weight than any condemnation. It forced Israel to experience, briefly, the accountability it usually evades. The spoilt brat nation got some overdue disciplining.
Between 1964 and 1992, apartheid South Africa was banned from the Olympics and other competitions because its system violated sport’s basic values. The principle was that structural oppression forfeits the right to equal participation. Israel’s occupation regime and ongoing siege of Gaza, its apartheid surely meets the same criteria under international law, yet the federations that once enforced that standard now shrink from it, because of who it is.
Indonesia’s stance revives that older logic — that inclusion without accountability is complicity.
Global sport remains one of the few arenas where Israel continues to appear normalised. Diplomatic isolation can be concealed when the national flag still flies in stadiums. The Jakarta decision cut through that image. For the first time in years, a world-class event is going ahead without Israeli representation.
FIFA’s quick punishment of Russia and its ongoing indulgence of Israel expose the alignment between politics and procedure. The statutes used to suspend Russia still exist. They simply remain unused.
But if federations are silent, the crowd is not. Protests outside Israeli fixtures have multiplied across Europe. Demonstrators consistently link their actions to sport’s previous moral stances. They remember that Russia was expelled for bombing cities; they ask why Israel is not. The banners and chants form a parallel record of conscience, visible even when institutions avert their eyes.
Indonesia’s action was not a political stunt. Under the Vienna Convention, border control is sovereign. CAS affirmed that principle. The outcome demonstrates that a host can refuse entry on moral grounds without breaching any sporting contract. This provides a reference case now for all future hosts. It is now established practice.
The refusal fits within a documented pattern. South Africa’s genocide filing, Brazil’s senate motions, and Chile’s suspension of diplomatic ties all express the same determination to enforce morality independently of Western sanction. Indonesia’s act joined those measures with legal precision. It turned sympathy into jurisdiction.
The entire act was bureaucratic. No speeches, no threats, no slogans. A minister issued an instruction; an agency followed it; a court upheld it. In that sequence lies the new face of resistance — procedural, quiet, and irreversible once written.
Israel’s federation declared that no future host should be “allowed” to repeat Indonesia’s behaviour. The language is telling. The demand for a right to exception remains the subtext. God’s chosen people are stamping their feet and demanding to be placed on a pedestal above all others. Yet the precedent now exists; the paperwork cannot be undone. Israeli outrage should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Across the Global South, governments are no longer treating Western-led federations as moral arbiters. They are asserting their own standards. The ICJ’s provisional rulings, UN experts’ statements, and visible public protests have given those governments the legal and political cover they need. Indonesia’s move was the first concrete demonstration that they can act without waiting for someone else.
Israel’s typical response—mobilising diplomatic pressure and framing criticism as antisemitism—proved useless here. Immigration law left no room for lobbying. CAS’s decision ended the matter before politics could re-enter. There was no negotiation to exploit, no procedural back door. For the first time, Israel’s influence met an immovable process.
Sport’s governing bodies will continue to claim neutrality, but Jakarta has redefined the term. Neutrality now means hosting events under the law, not ignoring the law. It means treating every nation equally, even when equality offends the powerful. International criminal justice is slow; moral enforcement through sport can be immediate. Jakarta’s refusal filled that gap. It didn’t punish; it withheld legitimacy. It didn’t convict; it refused recognition. In a world where impunity thrives on appearances, that is a serious form of accountability.
The precedent is now operational. Any future host can point to Jakarta and cite lawful authority. The CAS ruling and FIG compliance are public record. Those facts give cover to any state that wishes to replicate the model.
Federations are cornered between law and politics. Either they apply their own rules consistently, or hosts will continue to impose consistency from below. If they fail to respond, their authority will erode further. Jakarta has already shown that world sport can function perfectly well without their intervention.
Public protest remains the most visible gauge of legitimacy. When thousands gather outside a stadium to demand equal enforcement, the optics change faster than any committee vote. Those demonstrations are now part of the moral infrastructure of sport. They remind hosts that they have political cover to act, and remind federations that their silence is noticed.
The comparison between South Africa’s exclusion and Israel’s immunity is now unavoidable. Both regimes stand accused of systematic discrimination. One was isolated until it reformed; the other continues to compete. Jakarta forces the question back onto the table: what changed — the crimes, or the alliances?
The decision did not criminalise or sanction anyone. It did not dictate terms to other hosts. It simply declined to legitimise a state delegation under live investigation for atrocities. That sequence is the precedent.
Israel warns that allowing visa refusals sets a “dangerous precedent.” The precedent is only dangerous to double standards. To prevent arbitrary exclusions, federations must apply their statutes equally. Jakarta’s act is a symptom of their failure to do so.
The International Gymnastics Federation and CAS, by respecting Indonesia’s law, have set a new standard of restraint. In doing so, they have exposed FIFA’s selective enforcement. Athletes and fans can now see the difference between an institution that respects sovereignty and one that hides behind it.
Accountability no longer depends on tribunals or lifetime bans. It looks like a government calmly declining to participate in normalisation. It looks like a sporting body following host-nation law. It looks like a world event proceeding smoothly while a state under genocide proceedings watches from home.
Some argue that federations should impose blanket bans. Jakarta proves they don’t have to. Host nations can enforce moral limits themselves.
The unresolved question is why Russia’s actions led to immediate suspension while Israel’s bring none. Both conflicts are documented; both violate humanitarian law. If the rules differ, federations should admit it. If they don’t, enforcement must be equal. Jakarta has ensured that the question is one we’ll keep on coming back to.
Jakarta’s paperwork has become precedent. Other governments are studying it. Somewhere, another visa office will soon face the same decision — and the same choice to act. If they don’t make the right choices, many people will be asking them why that is.
It’s a question that could also be asked of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee when they decided to award this year’s peace prize to a hard-right Venezuelan opposition leader who has called for the US to invade her own country and kisses Israeli backside like the Pakistani President kisses Donald Trump’s. Hardly peaceful, so what’s the justification other than Trump is bombing fishing boats because he wants to start a war with Nicolas Maduro? Get all the details of that story in this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.